It seems normal to us that when it comes to how many gods there are, we only have two choices: one, or none. God is pretty much like a light switch – either on, or off. He either exists, or he doesn’t.
But of course we know that is not how people have seen the world for the greater part of human history. Have you ever wondered what it must be like to live in the world believing that there are many gods? For the ancients, the world was shot through with deity. But this was of no comfort, because it was only a reminder of the sheer complexity and uncertainty of things; that at the centre of reality was a power struggle in which human beings were only the play things.
The polytheist knows how precarious human existence is, how out of our control. Human life was a balancing act, a matter of managing as best you can the uncertain powers that threatened to upset your fragile security. You had to forestall their wrathful moods and irritations. Like some heavenly soap-opera, they were always bickering and squabbling and turning into animals and raping beautiful nymphs. [Basically, like Rugby League players...]. The polytheist looks out on the world and sees only chaos.
It meant of course that there were many claims on your worship. It was a theology of options, but of course your choice had to be made in the absence of all the data – which is why polytheistic religions tend to admit all contenders to the rank of deity just to be sure you have covered all the bases. What looks at first like freedom to choose, descends into a matter of insurance. It is ruled in the end not by security, but by anxiety.
My suspicion is that, although our contemporaries would choose either ‘one god’ or ‘no god’ in a survey, a better description of their outlook would be ‘practical polytheism’. From where we sit, the underlying reality of the universe is actually multiple, disconnected, chaotic. Spiritual and/or physical forces compete with one another like the great tectonic plates on the earth's crust - and we puny humans get caught up in the quake.
That’s reality as the tabloid newspapers paint it. That is the essence of things according to A Current Affair.
Posts
8 comments:
--From where we sit, the underlying reality of the universe is actually multiple, disconnected, chaotic. Spiritual and/or physical forces compete with one another like the great tectonic plates on the earth's crust - and we puny humans get caught up in the quake.--
Any notion of where ideological or abstract forces would fit into that?
-----
"Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile."
not quite sure what you mean... I just think that the overall impression of the world as we experience it - whatever the reality is - is that it is chaotic. We might even BELIEVE it is unified - but in practice as we encounter the world, we have to act as if chance was the only paradigm.
Sorry; it's merely an ill-formed hunch that one way this "Practical Polytheism" can show itself could be through some of our purportedly rational notions in the social sciences, esp. if taken to obsessional lengths.
Hi Michael,
It’s an intriguing insight about practical polytheism - what was name of writer where you first saw it?
Perhaps one area this analogy seems to break down is the gulf in epistemological confidence between ancients and post-moderns. Post-moderns tend to be pessimistic about understanding and influencing any out-there ‘forces’, whereas ancients were more confident with their sacrifices to their portfolio of gods.
Anway, plenty of food for thought here that will help our apologetics. Thanks
p.s I noticed the cheap shot on rugby league - you might be in trouble with the judiciary for that one! (or at least any editor sensitive to league fans :)
Rhys - I thunk of it all on me own!
Aesculapius - can I crave a greater exposition of your point? I am still not getting it, though it sounds intriguing.
As a case in point, take Marxism. While it purportedly de-personalises its areas of analysis in the name of pursuing scientific rigour and eschewing "Utopian" solutions, it vaguely seems its devotees could get caught-up at times in juggling its intricacies.
Still on Marxism, Lenin's notorious asceticism just struck me as similar to that of Julian the Apostate.
The logic seems a little backward, as you argue it. We see the same symptoms in modern society as existed in ancient polytheistic society, so therefore we are effectively polytheistic. I'm not saying I disagree - I'm not, and like the insight - but it sounds like you're cheating.
Everywhere I go on this blog I keep encountering ancient Greece...
Anyway, the Iliad is of course the supreme example of the utter hopelessness of polytheism. There are the gods, lined up on their different sides, and you had to hope your side won, that there weren't any telling divine defections that went against you, etc. I'd go so far as to say that polytheism precludes faith. The gods were too capricious, and even when they weren't, you couldn't be sure they'd deliver. Even the official hierarchy of authority was no guarantee, because many of the myths revolve around this authority being subverted.
And so, just to make the most of Homer, life was an Odyssey. You were effectively on your own, and each day brought new dangers as you stumbled into the path of some deity or other.
Which, I suspect, is why most ancient polytheists were practical monotheists. [This is me being cheeky too...] It was simply too difficult to sustain a true polytheism, so they picked their favourite, the local deity, and just looked after placating him or her. Faced with a life of perpetual anxiety otherwise, they put all their chips on the one bet and hoped it worked out ok.
And, in today's quirk of verification, my word is 'manamsg' - perhaps SMS for 'manna message'...
Post a Comment